Re: Found the actual quote by John Gibson

"rich hammett" <bubbarichau@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1318onvjv3pgb7b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, Charles Beauchamp:
"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:JFzKFs.1L0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Charles Beauchamp" <c.e.beauchamp@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
"Ralph Kennedy" <kennedy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"Charles Beauchamp" <c.e.beauchamp@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Rich fired up something utterly silly and completely out
of context that bore little resemblance to what Gibson
was stating.

The quote from Rich's memory:

"You'd have to imagine a fictional person to imagine
a Democratic president taking America to war."

The actual quote:

"I know, you have to imagine a Democrat going to war,
but let's just say it's possible."

No, you're the ass here, Mr. Schrumpf. And
a stupid one, at that. The quote is essentially the
same, and all the previous arguments still apply.

The quote is most certainly not the same.

The quote is essentially same, Charles. What
idea is different?

All the other words around both statements for one thing.

No, Charles. I realize English is your second
language after French, but both sentences say the
same thing,

Wrong. Firstly they do not say the same thing. Rich suggested Gibson
was
stating fantasy. Obviously there was nothing in Gibson's statement that
came close to that.

Gibson said you'd have to imagine a Democrat GOING TO WAR. If that
doesn't sound like fantasy, then you are, well, Chaz.


There is an obvious difference in use of wording that comes in degrees and
reasonable people know the difference.

Rich clearly had a problem with the meaning of the
sentence..but to get that meaning he had to entirely ignore the context
(everything else said around the very sentence he misquoted).

Gibson said nothing else about Democrats going to war around that.
How do you think he justified that statement?


Everything else he said around the sentence tells you he is speaking in the
present about the present. You turned around and began ranting about the
history of the Democratic Party.

You are
defending the indefensible.

that you'd have to imagine a Democrat
ever going to war (which implies there are no real-life
examples).

Try reading the actual thread you are talking about Ralph.

I was in the thread from the beginning, long
before you showed up, you dolt.


I don't care when you joined. You have a habit of ignoring actual words
and
comments in threads that you decide to fire up in. Read the actual
thread
again and see what was actually said.

They both say the same thing,
that you have to use your imagination to even
conceive of a Democrat ever going to war. Which
is bull***, because FDR, Truman, Johnson, and
Clinton all did it. You don't have to imagine
*****. There are numerous examples.

Thus proving that you do in fact have the same illness that he has
since
that is clearly not the context at all of what Gibson was talking
about...

First of all, what the context was is a completely
different issue than whether or not there is any
semantic difference between the two quotes. You
random stream-of-consciousness moran.

Oh nonsense you idiot. The context is always everything.

Nothing Gibson said made his quote any better.

Jeez, everything Gibson said derived from current actual events. You
ranted..and so did Ralph about Truman and FDR as if Gibson was speaking
about all Democrats in American history. Here is a clue...Harry Truman
wouldn't side with you morons if he was around today.

Or perhaps
you can explain what he said that made his "imagination"
statement make more sense. Please do, in fact.


I think every single reasoning person who has heard of the Gibson quote or
read it has concluded that everything he said was accurate and current. His
imagination statement obviously made sense seeing as how everyone but you
two retards understood him.

...as has already been clearly explained in this thread by Mr.
Schrumpf.

Mr. Schrumpf has shown absolutely nothing but
bluster in this thread. Kindly show where Mr. Schrumpf
"showed" that the context somehow changed the meaning
of the sentence.


Mmmm ...no. You can just read it for yourself. It is all there still.
Does your newsreader just magically render threads impossible to re-read
once you are shown up?

RIF...

Exactly. Get someone to translate the English
into French, so maybe you can actually understand what
the sentences mean.


Cute. Get the dust out of your eyes or have your Nanny read the actual
messages back to you. Then ask a grownup to explain context to you.

We'll get the grownup to stop by your house, if you still need
context explained to you, too.


Well moron, since you took the comment he made and then changed the meaning
of one line in order to start a bizarre thread I'd say you obviously don't
know. And since the damned context has been shoved into your face
repeatedly and you still don't get it..invest in a drool bib. You are a
lost cause.


--
v/r Beau

My only hope for torture by the US government is that they would
torture you. - Rich Hammett 3/27/2007


.